508 OCTOBER TERM, 1907. TsE Chirr Ju?r?�? dissenting. 209 U. 8. objection to a particular court in which the suit has been brought or to which it has been removed. We have made these many quotations and references, not simply to establish the doctrine iteelf, but to empl?asize the widespread injurious results which may be expected to follow from now enforcing a different rule; for, if in a case between citizens of different States, of which the Circuit Courts of the United States are given general jurisdiction, an objection to the jurisdiction of .a particular one of those courts cannot be waived and no con- sent can give jurisdiction, it is clear that mgny judgments have been rendered by those courts in reliance upon such a waiver, which will neeessarily be held to be absolutely void, and the litigation must be had over again in some other courts, resulting, possibly, in different deeisious l' .'ough the disap- pearance of witnesses, the loss of testimony? or the lqmnlng Of the statute of limitations. The jurisdiction of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern Division of the Eastern District of Missouri was settled by the proceedings luat by the two parties, and the application for a writ of mandamus is D?n/ed. THE CHIEF JUSTICE dissenting. The right of action was not vested in the next friend and the citizenship of the infant controls. The case is one, there- fore, in which the plaintiff was a citizen and resident of the State of Illinois and tbe defendant a corporation created and existing under the laws of the State of Kentucky, and a citi- zen and resident of that State. The action was brought in the Circuit Court of the city of St. Louis, Missouri, of which State neitber of the parties was a citizen. The fact that the. next .friend, who also acted as attorucy-at-law for the minor, waq a citizen of Missouri, is immaterial. The qucsticn is whetlint, where neither of the parties is a citizen of the State in which the action is. brought, the juris-
�
